Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

What the member for Flinders, in his great enthusiasm, should always remember is that, no matter what the states and territories do, the federal government has an onus to perform and to show leadership. It is not good enough for so many people, on behalf of the federal government, to blame others, because the environmental challenges that confront this nation do not require a timid approach—that somebody else should be doing it; it is somebody else’s fault. The challenges require courage and decisiveness. The member for Flinders cannot scurry away, because he knows that the criticisms by Dick Pratt are of all governments—not just state and territory governments. There is something lacking in the way in which the federal government would try to influence this.

It is not the case, in any way, that somebody should just get up and crow, ‘Well, I did my bit.’ What is the Prime Minister doing? Is the Prime Minister on side? Is the Prime Minister actually giving support for these proposals? The real problem is that we have this lack of focus; we have to have the point scoring—‘It’s always somebody else’s fault; it’s not our legislation that is dictating behaviour.’ We woke up to discussion of media ownership, and because everybody is talking before the proclamation of the bill, it is to do with the previous legislation. What the Prime Minister should be doing is not just acting like some spin master, in some audition to replace CJ Cregg in the West Wing; he should be getting down to the business that is involved, and discussing the elements, not just the spin. He has to take the leadership role and show the decisive action, the big picture, not just give this timid reaction.

We can bet that, when the next State of the environment report comes out, it will yet again be a report on the state of the degradation of our environment. That is simply not good enough. At a time when the debate on climate change is moving into the next phase, it will possibly not just be about reaching the present targets but might lead to a challenge to governments throughout the world to revise those targets upwards. If we are failing in our endeavours to reach the targets at the present time, what is going to happen if the IPCC comes out and says that the targets should be ratcheted upwards, which is a possibility?

Again, I know that I have emphasised the role of the Senate in this speech, but Senator Heffernan is coming out and saying that he wants to transplant agricultural processes to other parts of the continent. The real key is that, regrettably, if climate change rolls on, that may have to be one of the considerations—and that will come at a high economic cost, which will have to be balanced over those things that we do not take into account when we are looking at issues like climate change. This really is the challenge. To have a piece of legislation like the one we are debating today—with 409 pages and not a mention of climate change, not an indication that we have to move on—is of really great concern. It does not show that the government is properly focused on those things that confront us directly now, not in a sense that we have to worry about them in the future.

It is appropriate that the EPBC Act be reviewed. But if you are going to do it, do it with a transparent method—take some time about it. If the government are fair dinkum about the review, they should take their time, they should embrace outside comment, they should move in a way that could encourage a bipartisan decision about any ways in which the act could be made more efficient. If that is the reason for this bill, let us be fair dinkum. But there are a lot of aspects of this bill that are not about simply the efficiency and effectiveness of the act; they are about changing the way in which decisions are made; they are about giving greater power to the minister; they are about politicising, even to a greater extent, decisions about environmental matters. It has been said by a number of my colleagues in this debate that we thought in Australia that we had moved on from that. We thought that we had moved on from environmental decisions, heritage decisions, being made on the basis of nudge, nudge, wink, wink. We are starting to see concerns that we are returning to that.

I know that, down in Gippsland, the issue of wind power and wind turbines has been a very controversial subject. I know that, in the run-up to the last federal election, it did have some influence on the electorate’s decision-making. But the way in which this environment minister of the Howard government has made a decision to intervene in decisions on wind turbines, like the Bald Hills example, is quite extraordinary.  The real concern is that, if we have further decisions like that, they will devalue the credibility of environmental processes and environmental decision-making and all aspects of environmental impact. We just cannot pluck out reasons for the minister to intervene and for the minister to be able to make a decision that does not have the ability to be challenged. That is just going back to the dim Dark Ages.

It is clear that we should not be having debates about environmental matters on a controversial basis. There is a plea that is made by this side of the House that we lessen the political interference, that we make the processes transparent. Why, if we are saying this is simply for efficiency and effectiveness, should the ability of third parties to intervene be taken out of the present act? There are often very good reasons why people who have a third-party interest should have the ability to discuss the decisions that are being made about these types of matters.

What is happening with this legislation is a move away from a full discussion, a full system of decision making, to a very narrow system of decision making. The confidence of the community will be further fractured because of this. The confidence of the community in being able to agree to these measures that they are going to have to use to confront the major environmental problems of this nation will be fractured. It will actually be trashed. We need the cooperation of the community if we are going to get effective measures in place to combat climate change and to combat the way in which the lack of water in this continent is so changing our lifestyles. I hope the government will reconsider and withdraw this bill. (Time expired)

See this speech in context